-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(typescript): convert js to ts #31
Conversation
a8bfe62
to
3aa41a8
Compare
12dfee3
to
e404853
Compare
6b22f9a
to
50cec13
Compare
@tienduy-nguyen, |
Yes, I tested it in my own npm. |
35f92e2
to
e7be794
Compare
65db764
to
2a50d03
Compare
Thank you for your contribution @tienduy-nguyen. If I may, this work should have been split into several PR to ease the review and track each issue. Also, why do you replace ava with Jest? 🤔 |
What do you mean ? Split between test, core and build maybe ? |
I thinks Fabien want to talk about the separation for steps: travisCI -> Github action, update dependencies, .....
Ava is very light, It's not too bad for an libary npm. But it's syntax is not too familiar. It demands more tools to work completely as sinon and nyc. And debug with On another hand, we have a trouble with So I think |
It should have been done sequentially to keep track of each major modification instead of only two commits covering a total rewrite of the lib, some addition, a new CI system, etc. The advantage of AVA is especially that it is a lightweight test runner without bringing extra tooling. Also, the fact you're not familiar with the syntax a tool provides doesn't mean it has to be replaced. Regarding Jest's improvements, I'm pretty sure it is unnoticeable for such a small project. This change is purely motivated by your personal tastes instead of actual benefits for the library. I can't speak for the problem you encountered but as long as AVA was working before I bet you looked in the wrong direction ;) No hard feelings here, I'm glad you contributed but it should have been focused more on the library and its history. |
It also relates to this #26. |
OK, thank Fabien for clarifying them. I appreciate that. I'll take the modification. |
Ok to split by commit but do multiple PRs seems to be complicated since migrate TS needs to rework eslint, node modules, ci/cd... And I'm not sure this is possible to split it in multiple PR. I understand this PR is hard to review so we can split it by commit :
Maybe |
Why should this be difficult? This should be perfectly fine in this order:
The dependency upgrade could be included in one of the two MR, but if the code needs modifications, this should not be mixed up with other changes. |
2a50d03
to
5384069
Compare
Thank Fabien for your suggestion.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @tienduy-nguyen for your effort 🙏 This is much appreciated.
This should be included in a major release due to the number of changes and the impact on imports.
Close #28